Download Report

Forestry Projects under the Kyoto Protocol’s
Clean Development Mechanism:
One Response to the Threat of Global Climate Change
Columbia University
Master’s of Public Administration, Environmental Science and Policy
Workshop in Applied Earth Systems Management
Prepared by:
Nicole Cosmann, Matt Gray, Sue Kim, Thomas Legge, Iain Keith, Kimberly Klunich,
Eric Mehlhoff, Sara Moriyama, Namrata Patodia, Sujanitha Sambasivan, Mark Scorsolini,
Lyndon Valicenti
18 August 2005
1
Acknowledgements
The authors take this opportunity to thank Professor Bob Cook for his guidance of this
project, and Professors Patrick Louchouarn and Klaus Lackner for their valuable advice.
2
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 5
1.1. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint ..................................................................... 5
2. The Science of Climate Change............................................................................... 7
2.1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change............................................. 7
2.2. Scientific understanding of the climate system................................................. 8
2.2.1.
Solar Radiation and the Earth’s Energy Balance....................................... 8
2.2.2.
The Greenhouse Effect: A Natural Process............................................... 8
2.2.3.
Anthropogenic Influences on the Climate................................................. 9
2.2.4.
Uncertainty and Climate Science: Models .............................................. 10
2.3. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change ...................................................... 12
2.3.1.
Ecological impacts ................................................................................. 13
2.3.2.
Social and economic impacts ................................................................. 14
3. The International Policy Response to Climate Change........................................... 16
3.1. The Negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol........................................................... 17
3.1.1.
Legally Binding Commitments to Reduce Greenhouse Gases................. 17
3.1.2.
The Flexible Mechanism ........................................................................ 17
3.2. The Clean Development Mechanism.............................................................. 19
4. The CDM in Practice............................................................................................. 21
4.1. Carbon Sinks and Photosynthesis................................................................... 21
4.2. Measuring the Success of Forestry Projects under the CDM .......................... 23
4.2.1.
Carbon Stock Method ............................................................................ 23
4.2.2.
Establishing the Baseline........................................................................ 23
4.2.3.
Project Monitoring ................................................................................. 24
4.2.4.
Measuring the Sustainability of CDM Forestry Project........................... 25
5. CDM Forestry Projects and the Problem of Uncertainty ........................................ 26
5.1. Uncertainties Relating to Carbon Sequestration ............................................. 26
5.1.1.
Tree Age................................................................................................ 26
5.1.2.
Tree Species........................................................................................... 26
5.1.3.
The Potential Effect of Climate Change ................................................. 27
5.1.4.
Nutrients and Water ............................................................................... 28
5.2. Uncertainties Relating to Measuring Sequestration ........................................ 28
5.3. Uncertainties Relating to Measuring the Impact of Forestry Projects.............. 29
5.3.1.
Permanence............................................................................................ 29
5.3.2.
Additionality.......................................................................................... 29
5.3.3.
Leakage ................................................................................................. 29
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 30
Appendix: Glossary of Terms........................................................................................ 31
3
Executive Summary
A large and growing body of evidence suggests that the Earth’s climate is changing and
that this change is being caused by human activity. Global temperature readings reveal
that Earth’s surface temperature has risen by 0.6°C during the 20th Century and is
projected to continue to increase by an additional 1.4°C to 5.8°C above 1990 levels by
2100. There is some uncertainty associated with the complex science of climate change,
especially with regard to the predictive accuracy of climate models. However, there is a
near-consensus among scientists that climate change is occurring as a result of increasing
concentrations in the atmosphere of several greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
methane, which are in turn the result of centuries of energy consumption, land-use
change and other human activities.
Climate change models predict severe impacts that pose risks to society, the global
economy, and the natural environment. Ecosystem productivity and biodiversity are
threatened by the risk of abrupt and non-linear ecological changes, such as fires, droughts,
pest infestations, invasion of exotic species, storms, and coral bleaching events. Human
populations and the global economy may be directly affected through extreme weather,
drought, disease, and migration of species.
The international community has largely agreed that climate change is real and that there
is sufficient knowledge upon which to base immediate action. In response to this threat,
international governments adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This treaty established
legally binding restrictions on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels
by 2010. A series of market-based “flexible mechanisms” were established to reduce the
costs of complying with the Protocol. One of these, the Clean Development Mechanism,
allows developed countries to fund projects in developing countries that elad to
reductions of greenhouse gases in the host country. Forestry projects are allowed under
the CDM, taking advantage of trees’ absorption of CO2 through photosynthesis. Such
projects are controversial because of the difficulty of measuring the amount of carbon
that trees sequester and because of concerns that such projects will not lead to sustainable
development, one of the key criteria of the CDM. To address these concerns a number of
baseline methodologies have been proposed to take into account the uncertainties
surrounding the CDM. It will be necessary to observe the effects of individual projects
before the success of the CDM can be evaluated.
4
1.
Introduction
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that attempts to address the problem of
global climate change. The protocol sets legally binding limits on the anthropogenic
emissions of significant “greenhouse gases”, trace gases that trap heat and are thought to
be accumulating in the atmosphere at a level sufficient to change the Earth’s atmosphere.
The protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 but only came into force in 2005,
when the required minimum number of countries finally ratified it. Despite the nearconsensus that exists about the reality of climate change and the risks it poses to the Earth,
ratification of the protocol was difficult because many countries disagreed on how best to
address the climate change problem. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest
economy and emitter of greenhouse gases, withdrew from the treaty in February 2001
(along with Australia) due to concerns that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be
unacceptably expensive.
Partly in anticipation of such criticisms, the Kyoto Protocol established an instrument
called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that encourages developed countries to
invest in greenhouse-gas-reducing projects in developing countries. The purpose of the
CDM is to allow developed countries to benefit from the lower-cost opportunities in
developing countries to reduce greenhouse gases, whereas the developing countries
benefit from the investment that such projects will bring. One type of project allowed
under the CDM is forestry, based on the rationale that trees absorb carbon dioxide, one of
the main greenhouse gases.
This paper examines the problem that climate change poses, including the scientific basis
behind the theory of climate change and the threats associated with it. It describes how
the CDM was developed as part of the international response to this problem. It outlines
the scientific issues surrounding the inclusion of forests as eligible projects under the
CDM and considers some of the controversies that have arisen around the use of forestry
as a way of addressing the problem of climate change.
1.1.
Humanity’s Ecological Footprint
Humans have been on the Earth for only a fraction of its 3.5 billion-year history.
However, humanity’s ecological footprint – the impact on the planet’s ecosystems,
biogeochemical processes and natural resources – has been disproportionately large. This
impact has become especially pronounced over the past few centuries due to
industrialization and agriculture.1
The first humans were tribal hunter-gatherers that lived within small family groups with
minimal interaction between other groups. These groups maximized resources within
their local niche, collecting food and using whatever shelter was available in their locality.
On occasion these groups would travel, when the resource potential had expired for their
particular area. These early humans were entirely dependant on the environment for food
and shelter. This high dependence on the environment has eroded with time. The
development of tools led to more efficient techniques for hunting and gathering. As
competition for resources became less intense groups of humans began to come together
5
to share knowledge and resources.2 Some 10,000 years ago humans began to practice
agriculture, thereby ensuring surplus food supplies and allowing populations to grow.3
The greatest impact came with the Industrial Revolution, a process of great innovation
that began three centuries ago in Western Europe and is still continuing. Advances in the
fields of physics and engineering led to the production of steam power, a catalyst for the
growth of industries and transport. Such growth saw populations shift from rural to urban
areas in search of work, hence the formation of large scale industrial cities. Discoveries in
biology and chemistry allowed growth in agricultural production through the use of
fertilizers and, later, pesticides. Further innovation in science, engineering and economics
resulted in growth of the mining, forestry, construction, medicine, energy and technology
sectors, and innovations continue to appear today. All of these processes have extensively
consumed the planet’s finite resources and have led to exponential population growth,
placing even more demand on the use of natural resources.
Increased mass exploitation of resources has caused severe stress on the planet’s natural
systems, such that no ecosystem on earth is left untouched by humans.4 Technological
progress outpaces our ability to understand Earth’s biogeochemical processes. The great
changes that have driven human development, including land use changes and the
combustion of fossil fuels for energy, have led to significant emissions of greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. The accumulation of these gases in the
atmosphere is now thought to have disrupted the Earth’s climate system, with long-term
and potentially serious implications.
Growing concerns about the effect of human activity on the Earth have recently led to
attempts to address environmental problems at both the local and global level. Tackling
the problem of climate change is particularly difficult for several reasons, however. First,
although scientific knowledge has produced deep insights into the functioning of the
Earth’s climate, uncertainties remain in scientists’ understanding of the climate system
and especially in the projection of future trends due to the complexity of the climate
system. Policymakers must therefore make decisions that are important for the long term
without the luxury of complete certainty to guide them. Second, because greenhouse gas
emissions have been closely linked to human development major shifts in economic
patterns will be required to decouple development and greenhouse gas emissions. Third,
human development has seen social and economic benefits for many; but, a large
proportion of the human race is still excluded from the benefits of health, clean water,
regular food supply, and energy; this has caused complicated questions of equity to
dominate international negotiations. Fourth, climate change is a global problem that
requires international cooperation, which is very difficult to achieve. This report looks at
the Kyoto Protocol and particularly the use of forestry projects under the Kyoto
Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism as a way of addressing climate change in the
context of these and other issues.
6
2.
The Science of Climate Change
Climate change is an uncertain science because the Earth’s climate is a highly complex
system. The science must account for the interplays between the oceans, clouds, forests,
particulate matter, seasonal temperature variations, and many other factors in addition to
the increasing impact of human activities. Although there is near-consensus on the theory
that human activity is having an impact on the Earth’s climate, some scientists disagree
on the nature and extent of this impact. It is even more problematic to predict how the
climate will respond and change in the future. This poses a problem to policymakers, who
are forced to make decisions that have far-reaching implications for human development
on the basis of a problem that is not fully understood and whose consequences may not
manifest for many years. Nevertheless, scientific understanding of the climate system has
deepened over the past three decades. One of the most important forums for advancing
scientific understanding has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
2.1.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
From the 1970s a growing number of scientists began to hypothesize that increasing
concentrations of CO2 and other gases could lead to increased global temperatures. In
1979 the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) held the first “World Climate
Conference”, which discussed concerns among scientists that rising concentrations of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases could cause the Earth’s temperature to
rise. Subsequent conferences in 1985 and 1987 led to calls for an objective, balanced and
internationally coordinated scientific assessment of the understanding of the effects of
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate as well as the
potential damage to society that climate change could cause.5
In 1988 the WMO and the United Nations Environment Program decided to establish the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is an international
multidisciplinary collaborative effort to advance understanding of climate change and to
explain the issue to policymakers and the general public. To this end the IPCC is
mandated to provide independent scientific advice on climate change and its likely
impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The IPCC divides its work among
three working groups. The first group deals mainly with the dynamics of the Earth’s
climate system. The second examines the potential impacts of climate change. The third
focuses on possible responses to the threat of climate change, including adaptation. The
IPCC publishes regular Assessment Reports about every six years as well as Special
Reports on specific topics.
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (1990) was the basis for the negotiation of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (see section 3 below).
Although the First Assessment Report predicted temperature increases, it mainly
highlighted the uncertainties that existed in the theory of climate change. The Second
Assessment Report (1995) stated in its Synthesis Report that “the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”, that temperatures would rise
to between 1.4°C and 5.8°C above 1990 levels by 2100, and that sea levels would rise
between 15 and 90 centimeters by 2100, unless emissions were reduced by 50 percent
7
below the then-current levels.6 The Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, stated
that “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years
is attributable to human activities” and that the “Global average temperature and sea level
are expected to rise under all IPCC … scenarios”.7 These reports have conditioned the
international negotiations and raised public awareness on the problem of climate change.
The Fourth Assessment Report is currently under preparation and is due to be published
in 2007.
2.2.
Scientific understanding of the climate system
Through the work of the IPCC and other forums scientists have deepened their
understanding of the climate system and the potential impact that human activity could
have on that system. This section describes some of the main principles that govern the
climate system.
2.2.1. Solar Radiation and the Earth’s Energy Balance
The primary influx of energy into the Earth comes from the Sun, some 186,000 miles
away, in the form of shortwave radiation, predominately visible light and ultraviolet
radiation.8 The sun provides an average of approximately 345 watts per square meter of
energy to the Earth.9 As this solar energy enters the atmosphere, its fate is varied. Some
30% is reflected back into space by clouds, which effectively removes it from the energy
balance of the Earth. Another 25% is absorbed by atmospheric gases. The remaining 45%
is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.10 The Earth eventually re-radiates this energy back out
to space in the form of long-wave, infrared radiation. The result of the absorption of the
incoming solar short-wave radiation and the re-radiation of the long-wave radiation is an
overall global energy balance that serves to maintain a relatively steady temperature from
year to year.11
2.2.2. The Greenhouse Effect: A Natural Process
The laws of thermodynamics predict that, based on the size of the Earth and its distance
from the sun, the temperature of the Earth should be an average of -18ºC. In fact, the
Earth’s average temperature is 15ºC.12 The reason for this difference is the effect of
several gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) that trap
enough heat to warm the Earth’s surface. These gases are called “greenhouse gases”
because, like a greenhouse, they allow the heat of the sun to enter but prevent some of
that heat from exiting. Greenhouse gas molecules are typically at least three atoms in size
(e.g. CO2, CH4) and are transparent to visible light.13 They have the ability to absorb
infrared radiation, causing the bonds of the molecule to shift. The shifted bonds cannot
retain this “excited” position indefinitely and as they return to their normal position the
energy absorbed is then released as infrared radiation back into the atmosphere.14 The
absorption and release of infrared radiation back into the atmosphere prevents the
complete escape of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface into space.
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that is essential for maintaining a habitable
temperature on Earth, but there is increasing evidence that human activities are
accelerating this process and interfering with the Earth’s climate. While evidence from
ancient ice and deep-ocean sediments illustrates natural variability within the climate
8
system over geological time, the majority of the scientific community thinks that the
current acceleration of a warming trend has been driven by the anthropogenic addition of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution.15. Temperature readings reveal that the global mean surface temperature has
increased by 0.6°C during the 20th Century. 16 Even a single degree change in
temperature could have severe impacts on the Earth and its ecosystems. The sea level has
risen by between 10cm to 20cm in the 20th Century due the melting of glacier and polar
ice, as well as the thermal expansion of ocean water. Due the inverse nature of sea-ice
and temperature, sea-ice thickness can be used as an indicator of warming. The IPCC
reported that the thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic has declined by 42% since it was
observed in 1950s.17 Melting Arctic sea ice may also eventually lead to global changes in
the ocean’s thermohaline circulation, which is driven by differences in temperature and
salinity.18
2.2.3. Anthropogenic Influences on the Climate
Energy use, especially from fossil-fuel combustion, accounts for more than two-thirds of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.19 The use of fossil fuels produces various byproducts including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and other
hydrocarbons. The extraction, processing, transporting, distributing, and burning of fossil
fuels all contribute to significant emissions of CO2. During the period of intense
industrialization from 1860 to the present, an estimated 13,000 exajoules of fossil fuel
were burned, releasing 290 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. Along with land-use
changes (e.g. deforestation), fossil fuels have caused atmospheric concentrations of CO2
to rise by 30%.20 The average global growth in CO2 emissions from energy use alone
between 1971-1998 was 1.9% per year, and the scenarios modeled by the IPCC foresee
cumulative release ranging from approximately 1,000 to 2,100 gigatons of carbon if there
are no measures in place to control greenhouse gas emissions.21
The key drivers of energy use include population growth, urbanization, total Gross
Domestic Product, income, and the energy intensity of equipment and vehicles, among
others.22 These drivers are in turn influenced by changes in consumer preferences, energy
and technology costs, settlement and infrastructure patterns, technical progress, and
overall economic conditions.23 The direct effects of land use and land-use change and the
response of terrestrial ecosystems to CO2 fertilization, nutrient deposition, climatic
variation, and disturbance (e.g. fires and major droughts) may exacerbate the adverse
effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.24 Due to the limited information on forest and
agricultural land-management practices, global estimates of CO2 emissions from land-use
change tend to be based entirely on net deforestation-afforestation values. Moreover,
these net values are generally based on average figures for carbon storage per hectare of
forests.25 Notwithstanding the limited uncertainties, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are
thought to have a positive radiative forcing effect.26
While naturally occurring concentrations of greenhouse gases are necessary to maintain
Earth’s present climate, it is widely accepted that human activities have accelerated the
accumulation of such gases since the pre-industrial era (Figure 1 shows the recent
increase in concentration of greenhouse gases).27 In effect, the greater concentration of
9
these gases creates an enhanced greenhouse effect by absorbing more infrared radiation
from the Earth’s surface, thereby increasing the mean global surface temperatures.28
Figure 1: Indicators of Industrial Era Anthropogenic Influence on the Atmosphere.
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/02.01.jpg
2.2.4. Uncertainty and Climate Science: Models
Although there is a great deal of consensus about the thesis of human-induced climate
change, significant questions remain concerning the historic rate of warming, the extent
to which the Earth will continue to warm and how best to mitigate for climate change.
Scientists have relatively reliable data for global temperatures since the middle of the 19th
Century (see Figure 2), but for the years prior to the establishment of regular weather
observation stations scientists must rely on proxy data obtained from tree rings, marine
core sediments, and pollen, which can only indirectly measure temperature and are
subject to greater variability.
Climate modeling is a vital precursor to predicting how climate will behave in the future.
However, modeling the climate is a difficult and complex process. One needs to consider
not only a number of different extrinsic factors, such as astronomical, meteorological,
geological, and biological effects on climate, but also intrinsic factors such as cloud cover,
winds and air circulation patterns, volcanic activity, dust, soot, and aerosols, the oceans,
sea ice, and glaciers, whose effects are extremely difficult to accurately quantify. These
factors all interact with each to form a tremendously complicated system that is virtually
impossible to replicate in a controlled environment. The accuracy of climate models has
been improved over the past few decades but even the most sophisticated models are still
10
limited in their ability to account for all variables. Two examples of poorly understood
variables in the climate system are the roles played by aerosols and the impacts of land
cover and land use change.
Figure 2: Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature for past 140 and 1000 years.
Source:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpghttp://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/s
mall/05.16.jpg
On the basis of past estimates of climatic variability, aerosols may have an overall
cooling effect on climate, which could significantly impact the overall warming effects of
the greenhouse effect.29 Even though the source and distribution of aerosols are regional
in scale their effects are thought to be hemispheric or even global. Three types of aerosols
have important but poorly understood impacts on the Earth’s climate: black carbon (a byproduct of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass), carbon-bearing
11
compounds associated with particulates (that is carbonaceous aerosols) and organic
aerosols. 30 Black carbon has a global residence time of about one week which is
considerably shorter than the lifetime of most greenhouse gases31. For this reason the
spatial distribution of black carbon aerosol varies greatly and is most concentrated around
its source. Black carbon aerosols absorb sunlight and for this reason they can cause local
cooling of the surface but contribute to the warming of the atmosphere.32. Carbonaceous
aerosols are caused by an increase in the burning of fossil fuels and biomass for land
clearing, but lack of knowledge of the regional sources and composition of carbonaceous
aerosols globally makes it difficult to project their impacts on the climate.33 Finally, the
concentrations of organic carbon aerosols and mineral dust, which are produced by both
natural vegetation and fossil-fuel and biomass burning, will probably increase with
human land-use activities but the extent is not clear.34
Another example of a variable whose effect is uncertain is land use and land use changes.
Deforestation, for instance, can cause substantial regional climate forcing. Forests tend to
conceal underlying snow, which would otherwise reflect the sun’s heat back into space.
Removing the forest cover could make the Earth’s surface more reflective and thereby
create a cooling effect.35. On the other hand, deforestation leads to the release of huge
amounts of greenhouse gases.
Climate models attempt to deal with these levels of uncertainties in different ways, for
instance by running a range of models to predict likely future trends.36 The IPCC Special
Report on Emission Scenarios is a synthesis of a range of models that predict how
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases could increase over the next 100 years (see
Figure 3). The IPCC’s Second and Third Assessment Reports contain a range of models
that predict how the climate could develop in the future. These models all show a
warming planet within a range of predictions from 1.4°C to 5.8°C by the end of the 21st
Century.37
2.3.
The Potential Impacts of Climate Change
Climate change models predict severe impacts on both the ecological and socioeconomical spheres. The projected changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of
extreme climatic events may lead to increased risks of floods and droughts over many
regions.38 While beneficial effects can be identified for some regions as a result of
moderate amounts of climate change, these are expected to diminish as the magnitude of
climate change increases. For example, cereal crop yield models for some temperate
regions indicate a potential increase with small increases in annual mean temperatures,
and therefore, reduced frost damage. However, an increase in temperature beyond the
respective threshold for varying crops can affect key development stages (e.g. spikelet
sterility in rice, loss of pollen viability in maize, tubers’ development in potatoes) and
thus hinder the crop yields. Conversely, in most tropical and subtropical regions,
potential yields are expected to decrease for most projected increases in temperature.
Impacts may be especially devastating in dry land and rain-fed systems where a large
decrease in rainfall is also expected. When considered by region, adverse effects are
projected to be felt in much of the world.
12
Figure 3: Temperature change projected from the year 1990 to 2100.
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001wg1/small/01.33.jpg
The occurrence and severity of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events has been a
significant indicator of 20th century changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, climate, and
biophysical system. 39 They have become more frequent, persistent, and intense during the
last 20 to 30 years compared to the previous 100 years.40 El Nino and La Nina events
have large impacts on regional weather and climate, inducing intense droughts and floods.
These large climate-induced changes may have adverse impacts on the socio-economic
systems. For instance, an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Nino events may
lead to decrease in agricultural and rangeland productivity in drought and flood-prone
regions, as well as decreased hydroelectric-power potential in drought-prone regions.41
2.3.1. Ecological impacts
Climate change could add to the multitude of existing anthropogenic pressures on
biodiversity, including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, although it is not
certain to what extent climate change may enhance or inhibit these pressures. 42
Ecosystem productivity, biodiversity, and function will be threatened by the risk of
abrupt and non-linear ecological changes, such as: fires, droughts, pest infestations,
invasion of exotic species, storms, and coral bleaching events that are associated with
climate change. As these stresses on ecosystems rise, there is an increasing threat of
substantial damage to or complete loss of some unique systems as well as vulnerable
species suffering from an increasing risk of extinction. There is evidence that up to a
quarter of the world’s coral reefs have disappeared in the last few decades as a result of
rising sea-surface temperatures.
13
Changes in disturbance regimes and shifts in the location of suitable climatically defined
habitats are also expected. It is likely that future changes in vegetation driven by climate
change will profoundly alter regional ecosystems. For example, it has been shown that
climate change can alter plant species composition at Toolik Lake Field Station in the
Alaskan arctic.43 One of the major effects of warming on the predominantly tussock
tundra is an increase in the availability of nitrogen to plants by the acceleration of its
release from decaying organic matter. The abundance of nitrogen leads to an increase in
the dominance of the four plant species that were initially most abundant and a decrease
in the least abundant but vital forbs and lichens. Such lichens are critical to the lactation
and over-winter nutrition of the Porcupine caribou. These caribou herds are, in turn,
greatly important to the lives, tradition, and culture of Alaska’s native peoples, the
Gwitch’in. This is just one example of how climate change could have varied and
profound impacts to ecological as well as social systems.
2.3.2. Social and economic impacts
The majority of scientific literature shows that human settlements will be affected by
climate change in one of three major ways. Populations may be directly affected through
extreme weather, changes in health status, or migration. The problems are somewhat
different in the largest (over one million inhabitants) and smaller population centers. The
economic sectors that support the settlement are also affected because of changes in
resource productivity or changes in market demand for the goods and services produced
there. Finally, some aspects of physical infrastructure (including energy transmission and
distribution systems), buildings, urban services (including transportation systems), and
specific industries (such as agroindustry, tourism, and construction) may be directly
affected.44
Both indirect and direct affects to human health can be expected as a result of climate
change. Direct threats include an increase in heat stress and loss of life in severe floods,
storms, and landslides. An increase in the range of disease vectors (e.g. mosquitoes),
water-born pathogens, water quality, air quality, food quality, and availability will
indirectly affect human health. Despite a general global increase in the efficiency of
water usage, the demand for water is expected to increase due to population growth and
economic development.45 Water shortages, for example, may be exacerbated in most
water-scarce areas of the world by the reduced availability and degradation of water
quality.46
These health impacts are largely determined by the local government conditions and
socio-economic circumstances. The range of social, institutional, technological, and
behavioral adaptations that are available in reducing the full range of threats to health due
to the onset of climate change are also important aspects of the problem.47 Wealthy
countries have the financial, institutional, and technological resources to predict and
adapt to such impacts. Therefore, the impacts of climate change will fall
disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor persons within all countries,
and thereby exacerbate inequities in health status and access to adequate food, clean
water, among other resources.
14
Adaptation has the potential to reduce the aforementioned adverse effects of climate
change and can often produce immediate ancillary benefits, but will not prevent all
damages.48 Greater and more rapid climate change would pose greater challenges for
adaptation and greater risks of damages on the ecological and socio-economic sectors
than would lesser and slower change.
Predicting the impact of climate change on the global ecological and socio-economic
sectors may prove challenging when considering the cumulative effects of the
exponentially increasing human growth and the consequential land uses changes and
natural habitat loss. But, it is clear that the greater the magnitude and rate of climate
change, the more severe potential adverse impacts will be.
Despite the areas of uncertainty regarding climate science and the potential impacts of
climate change, the international community has largely recognized that the potential
benefits of acting to mitigate climate change now greatly outweighs the possibility that
the science supporting climate change is not accurate. The foremost international attempt
to address climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, recognizes as one it its guiding principles that climate change is a problem so
potentially serious that lack of scientific certainty is no excuse for postponing action.49 It
is to the more political question of action that we now turn.
15
3.
The International Policy Response to Climate Change
International attempts to improve governance of the Earth’s environment have gathered
pace since the early 1970s. 1972 was a year of great activity for the environment, with the
publication of a seminal work, The Limits to Growth, and the convening of the UNsponsored World Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. The
Limits to Growth was an academic study on resource use that was sponsored by the Club
of Rome, an association of academics and policymakers. It was an early attempt to apply
a “systems dynamics” approach to study human interaction with the natural environment,
using computer models to project likely outcomes for the world economy. The study,
which sold 12 million copies in 37 languages, predicted that human consumption of
natural resources at 1970s rates was unsustainable and, without intervention, the Earth
would simply run out of nonrenewable resources within the coming decades, leading to
an abrupt economic collapse.50 The study has been criticized for an over-simple view of
resource consumption that did not take into account increased productivity through
technological development.51 However, the study’s basic thesis – that exponential growth
is unsustainable in a limited system – was highly influential and remains valid today.
Climate change was not on the agenda in 1972, but decision-makers were increasingly
attuned to the potential problems of human’s interaction with the Earth that were
identified by The Limits to Growth. The Stockholm Conference set in motion a process of
regular meetings and raised awareness about the need for international cooperation to
address those problems. The United Nations Environment Program was established to
coordinate international efforts to protect the environment. As a follow-up to the
Stockholm Conference the World Commission on Environment and Development
(known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairperson, Gro Harlem Brundtland)
was established and, in 1987, presented a seminal report to the United Nations, Our
Common Future. This report included the definition of “sustainable development” that
remains the most widely used today: “Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”52 The
report recommended a global conference on development and environment. This
conference took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992 and was attended by more
than 100 heads of state representing 179 national governments, as well as thousands of
representatives of the media and non-governmental organizations. By 1992 the issue of
climate change had been steadily rising in scientific and public awareness and was one of
the main subjects for discussion at the summit.
The summit adopted a number of declarations and treaties, including the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development; Agenda 21, an international plan of action to achieve
a more sustainable pattern of development in the 21st Century; and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCC came into force in
1995 and has been ratified by 188 countries. The treaty did not set binding limits to the
emission of greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic sources; rather, it established
an international consensus on the problem of climate change and set up the international
architecture for future decisions to help countries meet the UNFCCC’s ultimate goal.
This goal is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
16
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.”53
3.1.
The Negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol
The UNFCCC’s primary achievements were to establish an international consensus on
the problem of climate change and to lay down certain principles for action. One of these
principles was that the problem of global climate change was so potentially serious that
mankind could not afford to wait until scientific certainty to start mitigating the effect of
climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Another was the principle that
developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its negative
effects, since the problem was historically caused by emissions from developed countries.
A third principle states that countries should promote sustainable development.54 In
Berlin, at the first Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in 1995, the signatory
countries agreed to work towards a Protocol to the UNFCCC that would require more
assertive action to combat climate change, taking into account these and other
principles.55
Following two years of intensive negotiations, the Third Conference of the Parties
(known as COP 3) was held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. The Kyoto Protocol,
which was adopted at the conference, was a landmark treaty because it set the first-ever
binding limits on the emission of greenhouse gases, requiring industrialized countries to
reduce anthropogenic emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5 percent
below 1990 levels by 2010.56 This achievement was due in part to three important
decisions. First, industrialized countries agreed to take the lead in combating climate
change by reducing their anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Second, industrialized
countries were allowed to realize these emission reductions at the lowest price, through
“flexible mechanisms” that utilize the power of the market. Third, developing countries
agreed that developed countries could take advantage of low-cost emission-reduction
opportunities in developing countries while at the same time bringing investment and
sustainable development to those countries. This third principle was realized in the Clean
Development Mechanism.
3.1.1. Legally Binding Commitments to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
The Kyoto Protocol is a diverse document of 28 articles that cover issues from education
to energy efficiency, fiscal policy, tradable emissions permits and carbon sinks. Several
sections in particular define the quantity and methods for reducing greenhouse gases.
Article 2 stated that developed countries (called Annex I countries) should take the lead
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, since historically these countries are responsible
for most emissions. Article 3 set an average targets for Annex I countries to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010.57
Additional articles defined the flexible mechanisms, which allowed Annex I countries to
use market-based mechanisms to meet their targets.58
3.1.2. The Flexible Mechanism
During the negotiations some countries emphasized that alternatives to reducing
emissions domestically were necessary for many countries to reach their respective
17
targets. The Kyoto Protocol established three key instruments, known as “flexible
mechanisms”, that allow countries to meet their emission-reduction targets partly through
the use of market-based mechanisms. The purpose of the flexible mechanisms is to lower
the overall cost of reducing emissions, for instance by allowing countries with difficult
targets to take advantage of cost-effective emission-reduction opportunities in other
countries. Theoretically, the overall effect on the atmosphere should be the same if a
country reduces greenhouse gases at home or in another country because greenhouse
gases accumulate in the atmosphere regardless of their point of origin.59
The three flexible mechanisms are Emissions Trading (IET, Article 17), Joint
Implementation (JI, Article 6) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, Article
12).IET allows any country that is below its target to trade its surplus quota with
countries that exceed their target.60 JI allows Annex I countries to meet their targets
partially by carrying out projects in other Annex I countries that lead to emission
reductions there; this mechanism is particularly aimed toward the economies in transition
from communism. In most cases, a developed country will fund a project in an Annex I
economy in transition, such as Russia or Romania.61 The CDM, like JI, is a project-based
mechanism but activities must take place in a developing country. Box 1 outlines how
these different mechanisms will interact.
Trading Units under the Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol establishes a range of credits and units to measure carbon, including
Assigned Amount Units (AAUs, the GHG amounts that Annex I Parties are allowed to
emit, based on allocations determined at COP 3 in Kyoto), Emission Reduction Units
(ERUs, which are generated by JI projects), and Certified Emission Reduction units
(CERs, which are generated by CDM projects). These units represent alternative ways of
describing allocations of greenhouse gas emission rights or reductions in greenhouse
gases. The three units analyzed describe GHGs in terms of tons of CO2 equivalent. For
example, one CER is equivalent to one ton of CO2 equivalent.
IET provides the framework in which these different units can be exchanged. Unlike the
CDM and JI, IET is not a project-based instrument but rather an accounting mechanism.
IET foresees the establishment of a “carbon market” where various units defined by the
Kyoto Protocol will be exchanged. To this end, countries must prepare national registries
of sources and sinks for greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol Secretariat’s own registry
will verify all transactions of ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs (Removal Units), including
their issuance, transfer and acquisition between registries, cancellation and retirement.62
Countries may authorize private companies to engage in emissions trading on their
behalf. Signs already point to emergence of an international market in Kyoto Protocol–
based permits that resembles standard commodity markets, complete with sophisticated
market devices like futures contracts and arbitrage. In fact, carbon markets have recently
appeared in trading centers such as London and Amsterdam.63 The European Union’s
emissions-trading system, which allows for the transfer of carbon units between EU
countries, is now open to CERs from CDM projects. This provides a large potential
market for credits from CDM projects and, subsequently, a large potential demand from
European investors for CDM projects.
18
3.2.
The Clean Development Mechanism
The CDM was negotiated as a compromise between the different interests of developed
and developing countries.64 For developed countries, the CDM offered the chance to
reduce emissions at low cost around the world. Developing countries wanted to benefit
from the investment and transfer of clean technology that could come with these projects.
Developing countries also demanded some compensation for the detrimental effects of
climate change. These interests can contradict each other – the cheapest project (for a
developed country) might not bring the most benefits to a developing country. To address
these concerns, the Kyoto Protocol set the following three criteria for the CDM:
•
•
•
Projects must results in “real, measurable and long-term benefits related to the
mitigation of climate change”
Projects must result in “reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would
occur in the absence of certified project activity”
Projects must assist developing countries “in achieving sustainable development and
contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention [i.e. the reduction of
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to safe levels]”65
Beyond setting these broad rules the Kyoto Protocol did not define how the CDM would
work in practice; this was left for subsequent Conferences of the Parties, particularly at
Marrakech (Morocco) in 2001. One controversial topic was determining what sort of
projects should be allowed under the CDM. Many project types could theoretically
reduce greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions greenhouse gases at their sources
or by enhancing the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere via a sink. Not all
potential projects would meet the three criteria outlined above, however.66 For instance,
the Marrakech Accords decided that nuclear power, although it produces few greenhouse
gas emissions, should not be allowed under the CDM because it did not contribute to
sustainable development. There was also much disagreement about the possible role that
forestry projects could play. Forestry projects are controversial due to uncertainty
concerning the ability of trees to absorb carbon dioxide and fears that these projects, if
badly designed or poorly monitored, could cause significant social and environmental
harm.67 The Marrakech Accords allowed two kinds of forestry projects to take place
under the CDM: reforestation, defined as “Replanting of forests on land that was
previously forested but subsequently converted to other use”, and afforestation, or
“Planting of new forests on lands that historically have not contained forests”.68
The Marrakech Accords established some other important rules for the CDM.
Recognizing that the laws of economics would tend to favor large projects over smaller
ones (which could be expected to bring greater relative social benefits), the Marrakech
Accords established a fast-track approval process for small projects (defined as projects
that reduce and emit less than 15 kilotons of CO2 equivalent annually) to make them
more competitive.69 The Accords also set a limit on the extent to which countries can use
the CDM to meet their targets, requiring that domestic emission reductions be a
“significant element” of each Annex I country’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.70
For the first commitment period (2008-2012), CDM projects can only meet up to 5% of
each country’s emission-reduction targets.71 Finally, the Marrakech Accords set up a
19
management body for the CDM known as the CDM Executive Board. This body is
responsible for the assessment and oversight of all aspects of projects approved under the
CDM. To date, 30 proposed CDM projects have been submitted to the Executive Board
for consideration and are currently in the validation stage (which includes a provision for
public comment). 72 Proposed projects include solar energy production, landfill gas
recovery, biomass-based power, and numerous agricultural efficiency initiatives.73
To date there have been no proposals for forestry projects, although a number of pilot
projects have begun under, for instance, the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund. This
is because negotiations are continuing on the final rules for afforestation and reforestation
projects. The CDM Executive Board has commissioned a specialized working group –
the Afforestation and Reforestation Working Group – to compile a set of baseline and
monitoring methodologies for the assessment of forestry projects under the CDM.74 This
Working Group has proposed new methodologies that await official adoption. These
proposed methodologies contain a complex array of equations and criteria that outline
what variables should be accounted for in any CDM forestry project.75 Once adopted,
these methodologies will provide the Executive Board with guidelines to analyze how
forestry projects may contribute to carbon mitigation strategies.
20
4.
The CDM in Practice
Forestry projects under the CDM would harness a natural process – the carbon cycle – to
reduce the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is a major
biogeochemical cycle that regulates CO2 and other greenhouse gases (like methane). It
involves exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, soils, plants, and oceans. It
provides for natural cycling of carbon through various pools, or reservoirs of carbon, and
drives the primary processes for life on Earth: photosynthesis and respiration. The carbon
cycle has historically been in dynamic equilibrium, returning as much CO2 to the
atmosphere as is sequestered. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, humans have
disturbed this natural cycle through the combustion of fossil fuels and land use changes
such as deforestation for agricultural use. The effect has been both the release of
additional carbon into the atmosphere and the loss of major pools of carbon – such as
forests – resulting in increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. 76 As a
mitigation effort forestry projects under the CDM would capture, or sequester, CO2 from
the atmosphere into carbon pools, thereby reducing the concentrations of CO2 in the
atmosphere. This section explains the carbon cycle and the exchange of carbon in the
terrestrial ecosystems.
4.1.
Carbon Sinks and Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is the primary activity that drives the carbon cycle and thus the carbon
sequestration in ecosystems. Photosynthesis, also known as primary production, occurs
when chlorophyll-containing plants in the presence of sunlight use water and CO2 (from
the atmosphere) to produce carbohydrates. It is by this process that CO2 is captured from
the atmosphere and sequestered, or incorporated into green plants. The amount of CO2
that is fixed (i.e. converted from CO2 to carbohydrates during photosynthesis) is called
gross primary production and is estimated at 120 gigatons of carbon per year.
Simultaneously, however, plants respire and release CO2. Terrestrial ecosystems
sequester CO2 because primary production is greater than respiration and other oxidative
processes like decomposition and combustion. 77 This net primary production is the
balance between photosynthetic and respiratory activity by higher plants and is a measure
of the annual plant growth. The total amount of CO2 in leaf water that is absorbed by the
plants is 270 gigatons of carbon per year, which is approximately a third of all the CO2 in
the atmosphere. 78 Combustion and decomposition can further release CO2 into the
atmosphere. The net carbon uptake by an ecosystem is thus the balance between the net
primary productivity (photosynthetic activity minus the respiratory activity of plants) and
the decomposition in an undisturbed environment. This is called net ecosystem
production. Due to deforestation and other land use changes, however, terrestrial
ecosystems release carbon from plants and soils and can become a net source of CO2.79
Eighty percent of the carbon exchange between the land and the atmosphere occur in the
forests. 80 Carbon fixed during photosynthesis is stored in leaves, roots, needles and
bark.81 Some of the carbon is transferred as dead foliage and twigs and forms the litter
layer. The litter layer decomposes and the carbon is transferred as organic matter to the
soil. Bacterial decomposition in the soil restores the carbon to the atmosphere. Figure 4
illustrates the exchange of carbon between the various carbon reservoirs.
21
Figure 4: Carbon pools and fluxes in a plantation forest ecosystem
Source: Cannell, M.G.R. 1995. Forests and the Global Carbon Cycle in the Past, Present and Future.
Research Report 2, European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
Currently the terrestrial ecosystem acts as a global sink for carbon in spite of the large
amounts of fossil fuel combustion and land use changes. About half of the dry weight of
a tree is carbon.82 Carbon uptake occurs both in vegetation and in soils. Figure 5 shows
that tropical forests are the biggest carbon stocks for vegetation but the boreal forests are
the biggest for soils. Also, the amount of carbon in the pools is much higher in the case of
soils as compared to vegetation.83 Soil carbon represents the largest carbon pool of
terrestrial ecosystems, and has been estimated to have one of the largest potentials to
sequester carbon worldwide.84
Figure 5: Global carbon stocks in vegetation and soil carbon pools down to a depth of 1
Source: IPCC (2000); Summary for Policy makers: Land Use Change Land Use and Forestry. A Special
Report
22
4.2.
Measuring the Success of Forestry Projects under the CDM
The Kyoto Protocol requires that CDM projects lead to real, additional, and long-term
emission reductions and contribute to sustainable development. Measuring the success of
forestry projects under the CDM necessarily involves measuring the extent to which the
projects address these criteria. At the Tenth Conference of the Parties, in Buenos Aires in
December 2004, agreement was reached on many definitions of land use, land-use
change and forestry issues mentioned by the Kyoto Protocol. These definitions relate
directly to the applicability of afforestation and reforestation projects.85 For instance, a
“forest” under the CDM was defined according to minimum size (0.1-1 hectare),
minimum crown cover (10-30 percent) and minimum height of trees (2-5 meters).86
Measuring the sequestration that occurs in CDM forestry projects will be facilitated by
such definitions. Measuring the extent to which the CDM meets the requirement of
sustainable development is more complex and controversial, however.
4.2.1. Carbon Stock Method
A proposed methodology for assessment and monitoring of CDM forestry projects
known as the carbon stock method addresses the extent to which a project leads to
additional, real and long-term greenhouse gas reductions. The carbon stock method was
set forth in the IPCC Good Practice Guidelines for Land-Use, Land-Use Change and
Forestry projects that was presented at the Eighth Conference of the Parties, at New Delhi,
India, in 2002.87 Under the proposed methodology, a series of criteria and equations
would be utilized to determine carbon balances for both a baseline and a project scenario.
The annual carbon stock changes are taken into account for the main carbon pools:
above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter and soil organic carbon, all of which
are detailed below. This methodology allows determination of the “additionality” of a
particular project by taking into account the “with” and “without” project scenarios,
along with any emissions associated with project implementation.88 The resulting net
change in anthropogenic emissions is measured in carbon dioxide equivalents,
representing the sum of “verifiable post project changes in carbon stocks within the
reservoirs” minus the baseline minus leakage, in the form of carbon release from pools
outside of the project area that result from management activities inside the project area.
The carbon sequestered represents a “liquid contribution” of the CDM forestry project to
the increase of carbon dioxide sequestration within project boundaries.89
4.2.2. Establishing the Baseline
Establishment of the baseline condition occurs at the start of the project and involves
determination of the most likely land use for the project area in a “without project” or
“business-as-usual” scenario. The baseline approach is defined in the “Proposed New
Methodology for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities: Baseline” as an
account of “changes on carbon stocks in the pools within the project boundary from the
most likely land use at the time the project starts”.90 The determination of carbon stock
changes associated with the most likely land use in the absence of the project is made by
identifying and quantifying several key factors. Direct human impacts on the components
of the ecosystem, such as land-use conversion, anthropogenic fires, or agricultural
conversion, must be projected. Natural ecosystem dynamics of the project area, including
23
the natural succession of species, and indirect human impacts like occurrence of invasive
species or climate change, must also be predicted. These factors are incorporated into the
baseline by utilizing economic modeling, policy and local practice research, available
data on ecosystem variables, and on-site data collection. A model based on these
variables is developed for each vegetation stratum.91 These baseline model components
are then compared against actual carbon sequestration under the “with-project” scenario,
determined by carbon monitoring within the project area.
4.2.3. Project Monitoring
Monitoring the carbon sequestered in a CDM forestry project area involves both
modeling and data collection via remote sensing and on-site sampling and measurement.
Remote sensing describes different methods that involve measuring from a distance,
including aerial photography, in order to develop maps for afforested and reforested areas.
This spatial data can be analyzed using Geographic Information Systems to monitor
changes in forest growth and cover.92 On-site data collection involves techniques used for
forest inventories, soil sampling, and ecological surveys. Only those carbon pools
measured and monitored may be claimed for carbon credits.93 Vegetation is divided into
strata in order to ensure that carbon pools are being measured for geographically and
ecologically homogeneous areas. Experimental plots are established within these
stratified areas in which the actual sampling of various carbon pools will occur. The
number of experimental plots designated is based on statistical analysis and must take
into account both the typology of the vegetation and the different types of soil. These
plots must be determined by the fifth year of the project. Random plots of four by twentyfive meters are delineated, but lots are expanded to five by one hundred meters if trees
are found within the plot with diameters exceeding 30 centimeters.94
Carbon pools include above-ground biomass (trees and herbaceous growth), belowground biomass, litter and soil. Biomass measurement procedures include diameter at
breast height for trees and dry weight for herbaceous growth. The diameter at breast
height measurement, taken at 1.3 meters from the ground, is converted to biomass and
then to a carbon estimate (carbon = 50% of biomass) using standard biomass regression
equations.95 In order to sample herbaceous biomass, two sub-plots measuring one meter
by one meter are delineated at random within the larger experimental plots. Within these
smaller quadrants, all biomass at soil level is cut, and fresh weight per square meter is
measured. Litter – leaves, branches, twigs and other accumulating dead or decaying
material on the forest floor – is sampled in still smaller sub-plots (0.5 meters by 0.5
meters) within the one square meter quadrants. Samples are also brought back to the lab
to obtain a dry-weight measurement. Standing and fallen dead trees are measured in the
same way as live trees, though the biomass of fallen dead trees also takes into account the
length of the tree within the experimental plot.96 Below-ground biomass is estimated
based on an accepted ratio of above-ground biomass to below-ground biomass. This is
done because methods for below-ground measurement are complicated and have not yet
been standardized.97 The standard below-ground to above-ground biomass ratio, which
exhibits little variation across latitudes and soil types, is listed in the IPCC guidelines as
0.2698. Soil cores are also to be taken within the experimental plots and analyzed using
laboratory procedures such as loss on ignition, in order to determine carbon content. Most
24
measurements are taken annually, though soil stock changes occur even slower than
biomass changes, so soil samples are to be taken every 2 years. These are recommended
to be soil cores taken to a depth of 30 cm. Project verification occurs on a 5 year cycle
with results presented to the Executive Board at this time.99
The overall purpose of this carbon monitoring process is to convert carbon-stock changes
into carbon credits to be sold on the market, using the Certified Emission Reduction
(CER) unit. In order to carry out this conversion, the carbon stock is calculated as the
mean carbon sequestered for all sample plots in the project area.100 One ton of biomass
carbon is equivalent to 3.67 ton of atmospheric CO2, or 3.67 CER units.101
4.2.4. Measuring the Sustainability of CDM Forestry Project
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol states that CDM projects must help developing nations
to realize sustainable development. To ensure this, the CDM project approval process
includes an assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of each project.
Several sets of criteria and indicators to assess these impacts have been developed,
though no single set has yet been agreed upon to serve as the standard.102 One example of
a series of criteria and indicators to assess environmental integrity and social equity was
developed in 2003 as part of a study conducted by the International Institute for
Environment and Development. 103 Criteria for environmental integrity include a net
increase in the amount of carbon sequestered; improvement in air, water, and soil quality;
and maintenance of or increase in biodiversity. Assessing social equity takes into account
a number of criteria, examples of which include net employment gain, quality of
employment, financial commitment to social goals, and local participation. This degree of
social inclusion of residents in the generation of carbon credits is a key issue in assessing
the contribution of CDM forestry projects to local sustainable development.104 More
formalized options for the assessment of sustainable development at the project level
include detailed environmental and socioeconomic assessments that could be adapted to
CDM forestry projects.105
25
5.
CDM Forestry Projects and the Problem of Uncertainty
The objective of forestry projects under the CDM is the reduction of carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere through the cultivation of trees that sequester carbon in
a way that promotes sustainable development. The IPCC’s Special Report on Climate
Change and Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry states that successful forestry
projects should be transparent, consistent, comparable, complete, accurate, verifiable, and
efficient in recording and reporting methods in measuring the amount of change in
carbon stocks.106 Much of the controversy around forestry projects under the CDM center
around whether such projects meet these requirements. Critics claim that trees are not
permanent repositories of carbon, that it is difficult to measure how much carbon trees
sequester, and that such projects do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations because
they lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. Many of the negotiations
around the use of forestry projects under the Kyoto Protocol were attempts to reach
consensus on how to account for such areas of uncertainties.
5.1.
Uncertainties Relating to Carbon Sequestration
Forestry projects are included under the CDM because of the ability of green plants to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere and incorporate it within their chemical
composition. There are many variables that determine the capacity of trees to sequester
carbon, giving rise to uncertainty about the effectiveness of forestry projects as mitigation
efforts.
5.1.1. Tree Age
Growing plants have a higher rate of carbon sequestration than mature plants. This is
because younger trees require additional carbon (created through photosynthesis) to grow
and synthesize various parts of their structure. Younger, growing forests thus sequester
large amounts of additional carbon proportional to the forest’s growth in biomass.
However, mature trees are a larger carbon pool and are able to store larger amounts of
carbon than younger trees. Additionally, carbon sequestration capacity has been found to
be higher in longer lived trees with high density wood as compared to short-lived, low
density, fast-growing trees.107 The old growth forest acts as a carbon reservoir even
though it is not experiencing net growth.108 Planting new forests trees is beneficial
because growing forests have the highest rates of carbon sequestration whereas mature
forests hold the largest carbon pools and as such should also be protected.
5.1.2. Tree Species
To make matters more complicated, the carbon sequestration rates also differ according
to the species. As illustrated in Figure 6, loblolly pine has a high rate of sequestration
within the first two decades which rapidly declines and becomes insignificant after 70
years. In contrast, ponderosa pine shows a steady uptake of carbon with a peak at 70
years. Thus the total carbon uptake might be higher in the case of ponderosa pine as
compared to loblolly pine but the sequestration peaks much later than in the loblolly
pine.109 Another study examined the carbon sequestration rates in plantations under CDM
forestry projects (figure 7).110 While teak had the highest sequestration, palm oil was
26
found to be a net source of carbon. This highlights the importance of the species planted
in an afforestation or reforestation project.
Figure 6: Carbon Sequestration Rates for three regions / species combination
Source: Richards, Moulton and Birdsey (1993).
Figure 7: Carbon sequestration for four species in Brazil
Tree Species
Total Certified Emission Reduction (t C)
Rubber Plantation
220,622
Palm Oil Plantation
-117,057
Teak Plantation
399,382
Eucalyptus
36,514
Source: Adapted from Van Vliet et al. 2003
5.1.3. The Potential Effect of Climate Change
Another factor that controls sequestration of carbon in the ecosystems is the observed and
predicted changes in the Earth’s climate. As the temperature rises, the photosynthetic
activity of the plants increases. CO2 fertilization – the process by which increased CO2
concentrations will enhance plant growth – could increase the carbon uptake from the
atmosphere. The combined effect of increased temperatures and increased CO2
concentrations means that carbon sequestration should increase proportionally,
suggesting that climate change might be a self-regulating problem. However, it is more
complicated than this. Along with photosynthesis, respiration within plants increases with
rising temperatures. Moreover, the rate of photosynthesis levels off and may decrease
after a certain temperature, which means that plants may begin to release more carbon
27
into the atmosphere rather than capturing it if temperatures continue to increase. A study
created three scenarios to assess the effect of climate change on the carbon sequestration
capacity of terrestrial ecosystems. 111 The study found that an increase both in CO2
concentrations and temperature would cause an increase in carbon sequestration in the
higher latitudes and the tropics. However, this feedback system is uncertain and there is
ambiguity around the point at which the carbon uptake due to CO2 fertilization will level
off or diminish.112 Eventually these sinks could become sources due to limited nutrient
availability, ecosystem degradation, and increased decomposition due to higher
temperatures.113
5.1.4. Nutrients and Water
When adequate nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorous) are available in the soil
and atmosphere, organic carbon is converted to new plant biomass. If these nutrients are
limited, photosynthetic activity is reduced and as a result the carbon uptake decreases.
Nutrient-rich soils are therefore essential for the growth of plants and for carbon uptake.
Northern mid-latitude forests are large carbon sinks but shortages of nitrogen can limit
carbon sequestration. 114 Another factor that could affect sequestration relates to the
availability of water, an essential component of photosynthesis. Slow water infiltration,
low water holding capacity and high salinity could limit plant growth and therefore
sequestration.
5.2.
Uncertainties Relating to Measuring Sequestration
There are many uncertainties in accounting for the actual carbon stock in the carbon pool.
The amount of carbon stock in a forest is calculated by measuring the carbon sequestered,
the carbon stored in biomass above and below the ground and the carbon found in the soil.
The amount of carbon released is accounted for by measuring the carbon lost during the
process of respiration, decomposition of dead decay matter and litter by bacteria in the
soil, and carbon also lost by the leakage activities. Several uncertainties affect the
accounting of carbon stock in the carbon pools when forestry projects are implemented.
These include: definitional errors due to bias or inconsistencies resulting from the
interpretation of the rules; classification errors causing the mis-classification of land;
estimation errors due for instance to events such as the omission of errors in remote
sensing; identification errors, which arise while defining the geographical boundaries of
forest projects; and sampling errors, when samples obtained for a forestry project do not
sufficiently represent the whole project.115 One example is posed by satellite imagery,
which is used to provide information on the total area, percentages of land-cover, and
geographical boundaries of a forestry project. Remote sensing is used to identify lands
and units of land of forestry projects. Uncertainty can arise if the satellite images are of
inadequate resolution.116 Errors can also occur if images are incorrectly dated and are
incorrectly attributed to the wrong plot of land.117
In addition to uncertainties in default carbon emission and removal factors, missing
activity data gives rise to further uncertainties. Determining retrospectively the inventory
for the base year (usually 1990) may be difficult for cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation.118 Where the net carbon emission and removals for the
base year cannot be established using the default carbon emission and removal factors,
28
they may be estimated by extrapolating a consistent time series. This requires accurate
data keeping and logs on the land management history for twenty years.119
5.3.
Uncertainties Relating to Measuring the Impact of Forestry Projects
Even if the amount of carbon sequestered by a forest can be accurately measured, there
are significant uncertainties surrounding the effect on greenhouse gas emissions of CDM
forestry projects outside the project boundaries and into the future. The CDM Working
Group has proposed methodologies for accounting for these uncertainties.
5.3.1. Permanence
The use of forest projects depends on the assumption that trees sequester carbon dioxide
and keep it for a significant period. The life spans of forests (except those planted for
wood products) are measured in centuries: Research has demonstrated that tropical
forests continue to sequester carbon dioxide throughout their life120. In contrast, the first
commitment period for Annex I countries is 2010 (measured as an average over 20082012). It is difficult to predict with certainty that a forest’s projected sequestrations will
actually occur over the lifetime of the trees. Stored carbon could be released back to the
atmosphere through natural forces like fire, disease, and hurricanes, or through human
activities such as the non-enforcement of contracts, non-compliance with guarantees,
expropriation, revocation of property rights, changes in policy, and market risks.121
5.3.2. Additionality
The Kyoto Protocol states under Article 12 that CDM projects must be additional
compared to a business-as-usual scenario. This means that projects must lead to more
greenhouse gas reductions than would have occurred without the project. One possible
objection is that a forestry project would have happened anyway either without the CDM
due to commercial or political reasons.122. Although there are methodologies to account
for additionality, different forestry projects will pose different accounting factors. Some
forestry projects would probably go ahead whether or not the CDM existed, such as
industrial-scale exotic-tree plantations for pulpwood or saw-timber.123.
5.3.3. Leakage
Leakage is the unanticipated increase in greenhouse-gas emissions that occur outside the
boundaries of a project as a result of the activities conducted within the project
boundary.124 Experience with leakage to date has been restricted to a few projects due to
a lack of data and limited time since project inception.125 One controversial example is a
pilot reforestation project taking place in Minas Gerais, Brazil, where reforestation may
cause energy-intensive pig-iron industries to move to states with less environmental
control. In addition, there is the possibility that landowners will be displaced, causing
them to establish new pastures on presently forested land.126 Quantifying leakage may be
difficult in some cases.
29
6.
Conclusion
Faced with the threat of climate change, humans must create policies that are adaptive
and innovative. There is no set solution to the problem of climate change, but as the
science evolves, hopefully so too will the policies to support science’s findings. The
Clean Development Mechanism’s inclusion of forestry projects is innovative because it
utilizes a natural process to address climate change. Forests provide an array of benefits,
including ecological benefits as well as essential services to humans as the lungs of the
Earth. In theory, the CDM provides a win-win situation for both industrialized countries
and developing countries. Industrialized countries can exploit lower-cost emissionreduction opportunities abroad. Developing countries, many of which do not have the
means today to join the global economy, could attract investment in the guise of CDM
projects and in the process contribute to the global effort to reduce atmospheric GHG
concentrations. Forestry projects are controversial, however, due to uncertainties about te
expected rates of carbon sequestration and the difficult-to-determine social and
environmental impacts. Resolution of the controversies around the CDM forestry projects
will depend upon the adoption of acceptable baseline methodologies to measure their
effects and broad impacts.
The CDM aims to allow developing countries to participate in activities that could
potentially bring down the cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol’s targets and
simultaneously facilitate sustainable development in the host country. In spite of some
unresolved issues, many developing countries have already shown an interest in hosting
CDM forestry projects. CDM projects also hold appeal towards the private sector, as
numerous private companies from Annex I countries have begun to investigate possible
projects. A global carbon-trading system is beginning to emerge and emission reductions
generated under CDM forestry projects could soon be traded like any commodity. The
United Nations Environment Program has launched a project, “Capacity Development for
the CDM”, to help developing countries to participate.127
Such initiatives will be necessary to ensure that the correct focus is placed on one of the
main criteria of the mechanism, that it lead to development that benefits not just the
economy but also society and the wider environment. The CDM Executive Board will
also have to ensure that the correct balance is maintained and that projects are not guided
solely by the interests of private companies. In this regard, the success of forestry projects
under the CDM depends on the development of adequate baseline methodologies to
account for the various uncertainty factors outlined in this report. The CDM’s
Afforestation/Reforestation Working Group has outlined a set of methodologies that will
assess the different extent to which projects actually lead to reduced CO2 concentrations
in the atmosphere, are long-term, and benefit society and the environment more broadly.
It will be necessary to observe the effects of individual projects before the success of the
CDM can be evaluated.
30
Appendix: Glossary of Terms128
Afforestation
Assigned amount unit (AAU)
Certified emission reductions
(CER)
Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM)
Emission reduction unit
(ERU)
Emissions trading or
International Emissions
Trading
Flexible Mechanisms
Joint implementation (JI)
Defined by IPCC as the establishment of forest on land
that has been without forest for a period of time (e.g.,
20–50 years or more) and was previously under a
different land use
Units of greenhouse gas emission permits. AAUs can be
exchanged through emissions trading)
A unit equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide
equivalent, which may be used by Annex I countries
towards meeting their binding emission reduction and
limitation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
A procedure under the Kyoto Protocol under which
developed countries may finance greenhouse-gas
emissions-avoiding projects in developing countries,
and receive credits for doing so which they may apply
towards meeting mandatory limits on their own
emissions.
A unit equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide
equivalent, applicable to binding emissions-reductions
targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and generated through
joint implementation projects.
Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol through which
Parties with emissions commitments may trade units of
their emissions allowances with other Parties. The aim
is to improve the overall flexibility and economic
efficiency of making emissions cuts.
Three procedures established under the Kyoto Protocol
to increase the flexibility and reduce the costs of making
greenhouse-gas emissions cuts; they are the Clean
Development Mechanism, emissions trading, and joint
implementation.
A mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol through which a
developed country can receive “emissions reduction
units” when it helps to finance projects that reduce net
greenhouse-gas emissions in another developed country
(in practice, the recipient state is likely to be a country
with an “economy in transition”)
31
Marrakech Accords
Quantified Emissions
Limitation and Reduction
Commitments
Reforestation
Removal Unit (RMU)
Sources
Sinks
Agreements reached at COP-7, which set various rules
for “operating” the more complex provisions of the
Kyoto Protocol. Among other things, the accords
include details for establishing a greenhouse-gas
emissions trading system; implementing and monitoring
the Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism; and
setting up and operating three funds to support efforts to
adapt to climate change.
Legally binding targets and timetables under the Kyoto
Protocol for the limitation or reduction of greenhousegas emissions by developed countries.
Defined by IPCC as the establishment of a forest on
land that has been without forest within the
aforementioned period of time and was previously under
different land use
Removal unit (generated in Annex I Parties by activities
that absorb carbon dioxide)
Fossil Fuel (coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline) burning by
industry, power plants, and automobiles; Biologic
Respiration; CO2 exchange between ocean and
atmosphere; Changing Land Use;
UNFCCC defines “sink” as any process, activity, or
mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an
aerosol, or a precursor of greenhouse gas from the
atmosphere.
Sequestration
Refers to the provision of long-term storage of carbon in
the terrestrial biosphere, underground, or the oceans so
that the build-up of [CO2] in the atmosphere will reduce
or slow
Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/2639.php
32
References
1
“UN Convention on Biodiversity: Sustaining Life on Earth,”, From
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/guide.asp?id=changing, Accessed 13 August 2005
2
Vitousek et al, (1997), “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Science Vol. 277, 25 : 494-499
3
“UN Convention on Biodiversity: Sustaining Life on Earth,”, From
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/guide.asp?id=changing, Accessed 13 August 2005
4
Vitousek et al (1997), “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Science Vol. 277: 494-499
5
IPCC (2004). 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention, Geneva,
Switzerland. From http://www.ipcc.ch/about/anniversarybrochure.pdf
6
Houghton et al, (Eds) (1995), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of
Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, UK
7
Watson et al, (Eds.). (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland
8
Philander (1998), Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Climate Change, New Jersey,
Princeton University: 35
9
Ibid
10
Ibid
11
Ibid
12
Ibid
13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
Kump et al, The Earth System, Prentice Hall, UK, 1999
16
Watson, et al, (Eds.). (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Nakicenovic, et al, (Eds.). (2000), “Emission Scenarios. A special Report of IPCC Working Group III,”
Cambridge University Press: 1-599.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Watson, et al, (2000), “IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry,” Cambridge
University Press: 1-377.
25
Nakicenovic, et al, (Eds.), (2000), “Emission Scenarios. A special Report of IPCC Working Group III,”
Cambridge University Press: 1-599.
26
Houghton, et al, (Eds.).,(2001), “ IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis,” Cambridge, Endgland.
27
Watson, et al, (Eds.). (2001). “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis
Report.,” Geneva, Switzerland.
28
Philander, (1998), Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming. New Jersey,
Princeton University Press.
29
National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, (2001), Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, Washington, DC,: 12.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid
36
UNEP (2005) “IPCC SRES Scenarios,” From http://climatechange.unep.net/jcm/doc/emit/sres.html,
accessed on 13 August 2005
33
37
Watson, et al, (Eds.). (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
McCarthy, et al, (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” Cambridge University Press.
43
Chapin, et al, (1996), “ Responses of Arctic tundra to experimental and observed changes in climate.”
Ecology, Vol 76:694-711.
44
McCarthy, et al, (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” Cambridge University Press.
45
Ibid.
46
Watson, et al, (Eds.) (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland
47
McCarthy, et al, (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” Cambridge University Press.
48
Watson, et al, (Eds.) (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland
49
Article 3 of the UNFCCC states: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures…”
50
Meadows, et al. (1972) The Limits to Growth, New York Universe Books
51
Tietenberg, (1992), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
52
UN General Assembly, (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development –
“Our Common Future.”
53
UNFCCC, (1992) Article 2
54
UNFCCC, (1992) Article 3
55
UNFCC Conference of the Parties, First Session 28th march-April7th 1995 From
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf, Accessed on 5 August 2005.
56
Kyoto Protocol, Article 3 and Annex A
57
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC Article 3 section 1, Pp3
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf Accessed on 13/08/05
58
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC Articles 3, 6,12 and 17,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf Accessed on 13/08/05
59
Streck, (2004),“New Partnerships in Global Environmental Policy: The Clean Development
Mechanism,” The Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 13: 295-322,
From <http://jed.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/295.pdf> Accessed 8 July 2005.
60
UNFCCC, (2005), Kyoto Mechanisms- Emissions Trading” From
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php Accessed on 5 August 2005.
61
Haites, (2000), “The Kyoto Mechanisms and Global Climate Change: Coordination Issues and Domestic
Policies” The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
62
UNFCCC, (2005), “Background: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,”
From <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/3016.php> Accessed 8 July 2005..
63
The Economist (2005), “Carbon trading: Revving up”, 7 July 2005
64
Schlamadinger, et al,.(2000), “Land Use and Global Climate Change: Forests, Land
Management, and the Kyoto Protocol,” The Pew Center on Global Climate
Change.
65
UNFCCC, (1997) “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol: Article
12,” From <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf> , Accessed 1 August 2005.
66
UNFCCC, (2005)“Kyoto Mechanisms- Joint Implementation Projects,” From
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/ji/items/1674.php, Accessed on 5 August 2005.
67
UNFCCC, (2001), “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: The Marrakech Accords
and the Marrakech Declaration,”
From < http://unfccc.int/cop7/documents/accords_draft.pdf>, Accessed 8 July 2005.
34
68
UNFCCC, (2005) “Glossary of Terms,”From
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/2639.php, Accessed on 13 August 2005
69
UNFCCC, (2004),“United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: The Mechanisms under
the Kyoto Protocol: Joint Implementation, the Clean Development Mechanism and Emissions Trading,”
From < http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/items/1673.php>, Accessed 8 July 2005
70
Ibid.
71
UNFCCC, (2005)“United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: CDM Background.”
From <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/3010.php, Accessed 12 August 2005.
72
UNFCCC, (2005), “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: CDM Project
Validation,” From <http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation>, accessed 9 July 2005.
73
Ibid.
74
UNFCCC,(2005), “United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change: Panels and Working
Groups,”From http://cdm.unfccc.int/Panels, Accessed 18 August 2005.
75
UNFCC, (2005), “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Clean Development
Mechanism: Proposed New Methodologies for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities”. From
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ar/ARWG01_Annex2_CDM_AR_NMB_rev01.pdf, Accessed 16 Aug. 2005.
76
Watson, et al, (Eds.). (2001), “IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis.” Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland
77
Prentice, et al, (2001), “ The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide Climate Change 2001, The
Scientific Basis,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78
Prentice, et al, (2001), “ The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide Climate Change 2001, The
Scientific Basis,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
79
Prentice, et al, (2001), “ The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide Climate Change 2001, The
Scientific Basis,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
80
Future Forests, (2003), “The Science and Policy Background to Sequestration by Forestry”
81
Hendrick, et al, (2000), “Carbon sequestration: Policy, science and economics. Proceedings of a
COFORD seminar on Carbon Sequestration and Irish Forests,” Dublin, Ireland.
82
Dayal, (2000), Carbon Trading and Sequestration Projects offer Global Warming Solutions
83
IPCC, (2000), “Summary for Policy makers: Land Use Change Land Use and Forestry. A Special
Report”
84
García-Oliva, (2004), “ Assessment And Measurement Issues Related To Soil Carbon Sequestration In
Land-Use, Land-Use Change, And Forestry” (LULUCF) Projects Under The Kyoto Protocol Climatic
Change, Vol 65: 347–364.
85
UNFCCC, (2004),“United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: COP 10.”.COP 10.
From http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_10/items/2944.php, Accessed 2 July 2005.
86
UNFCCC, (2003), “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Report of the
Conference of the Parties on its Ninth Session, Milan, 2003 December 1-12”, Part II: 17.
87
IPCC. (2003), “Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities:
Baseline (CDM-AR-NRB)”, Version 1.
From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, Accessed 10 July 2005.
88
García-Oliva, (2004), “ Assessment And Measurement Issues Related To Soil Carbon Sequestration In
Land-Use, Land-Use Change, And Forestry” (LULUCF) Projects Under The Kyoto Protocol Climatic
Change, Vol 65: 347–364.
89
IPCC. (2003), “ Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities:
Baseline (CDM-AR-NRB),” Version 1,
From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, Accessed 10 July 2005.
90
UNFCCC, “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Clean Development Mechanism:
Proposed New Methodologies for Afforestation and Reforestation Project Activities,” From
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ar/ARWG01_Annex2_CDM_AR_NMB_rev01.pdf, Accessed 16 August
2005.
91
IPCC. (2003), “Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities: Baseline
(CDM-AR-NRB),” Version 1
From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, Accessed 10 July 2005.
92
Emmer, (2005) “UNEP: An Introduction to the Monitoring of Forestry Carbon Sequestration Projects,”
From
35
<http://www.cd4cdm.org/countries%20and%20regions/Latin%20America/Ecuador/Training%20Workshop
%20-%20Reforestation%20and%20Bioenergy/docs/miercoles/mi_4_monitoring.pdf, Accessed 10 July
2005.
93
) García-Oliva, (2004), “ Assessment And Measurement Issues Related To Soil Carbon Sequestration In
Land-Use, Land-Use Change, And Forestry” (LULUCF) Projects Under The Kyoto Protocol Climatic
Change, Vol 65: 347–364
94
IPCC. (2003), “Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities: Baseline
(CDM-AR-NRB),” – Version 1, From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, Accessed 20 July
2005.
95
Brown, (2005), “Guidelines for inventorying and monitoring carbon offsets in forest-based projects,”
From http://www.winrock.org/reep/guidelines.html, Accessed 5 July 2005.
96
IPCC. (2003), “Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities: Baseline
(CDM-AR-NRB),” – Version 1, From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, Accessed 20 July
2005.
97
Brown, (2005), “Guidelines for inventorying and monitoring carbon offsets in forest-based projects,”
From http://www.winrock.org/reep/guidelines.html, Accessed 5 July 2005.
98
Emmer, (2005) “UNEP: An Introduction to the Monitoring of Forestry Carbon Sequestration Projects,”
From<http://www.cd4cdm.org/countries%20and%20regions/Latin%20America/Ecuador/Training%20Wor
kshop%20-%20Reforestation%20and%20Bioenergy/docs/miercoles/mi_4_monitoring.pdf,
Accessed10 July 2005.
99
IPCC. (2003),” Proposed new methodology for afforestation and reforestation project activities: Baseline
(CDM-AR-NRB),” Version 1,
From < http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/File>, 10 July 2005.
100
Emmer, (date?) “UNEP: An Introduction to the Monitoring of Forestry Carbon Sequestration Projects,”
From<http://www.cd4cdm.org/countries%20and%20regions/Latin%20America/Ecuador/Training%20Wor
kshop%20-%20Reforestation%20and%20Bioenergy/docs/miercoles/mi_4_monitoring.pdf.
Accessed 10 July 2005.
101
Mikro-tek, “Microbial Technologies for the Environment:Glossary,”
From http://www.mikro-tek.com/documents/glossary.pdf, Accessed 4 July 2005.
102
IPCC. (2000), “Summary for Policymakers: Land-Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.”
103
May, et al, (2003), “Local sustainable development effects of forestry carbon projects in Brazil and
Bolivia: A view from the field” International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity,
Bonn, Germany.
104
Ibid.
105
IPCC. (2000), “Summary for Policymakers: Land-Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.”
106
IPCC, (2000), “Summary for Policymakers, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry”.
107
Costa, (1996), “Tropical forestry practices for carbon sequestration - A review and a case study from
Southeast Asia” Ambio, Vol. 25: 279.
108
Sedjo, (2001), “Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments,”Resources for the
Future.
109
Richards, et al, (1993), “Costs of Creating Carbon Sinks in the U.S.,” Energy Conservation and
Management, Vol. 34: 905-912.
110
Van Vliet , et al, (2003),” Forestry Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism?”, Climatic
Change, Vol. 61:123-156
111
Cao, et al, (1998), “ Dynamic Responses of Terrestrial Ecosystem Carbon Cycling to Global Climate
Change,” Nature, Vol. 398: 249-252.
112
IPCC, (2000, “Summary for Policy makers: Land Use Change Land Use and Forestry. A Special
Report.”
113
Knorr,et al “Long-term sensitivity of soil carbon to warming”. Nature 433, 298–301
114
Oren, et al, (2001), “ Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched
atmosphere,” Nature, Vol. 411: 469-472.
115
IPCC, (2003), Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Chapter 4
Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol.
116
Ibid.
117
Ibid.
36
118
Ibid.
Ibid.
120
Brown, (2002), “Changes in the use and management of forests for abating carbon emissions: issues and
challenges under the Kyoto Protocol”, The Royal Society.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
125
Ibid.
126
Baptista, (2004), “Plantations under the CDM: how is Kyoto incorporating the uncertainty and
indeterminancy on decision-making?” Ecoman Centre, New University of Lisbon.
127
UNEP, (2005). “Capacity Development for the CDM.” <http://cd4cdm.org/> Accessed 2005 August 12.
128
UNFCCC, (2005), “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Glossary of climate
change acronyms.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/2639.php, Accessed 25 June 2005.
119
37
Anonymous (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Anonymous (1992). Sustaining Life on Earth. United Nations Convention on
Biodiversity, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Anonymous (1995). First Session. Conference of the Parties.
Anonymous (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate
Change, United Nations
Anonymous (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
Washington, D.C., National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life
Studies: 12.
Anonymous (2003). Conference of the Parties IX. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Milan, Italy.
Anonymous (2004). Conference of the Parties X. United Nations Convention on Climate
Change
Anonymous (2004). The Marrakech Accords and the Marrakech Declaration. United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Marrakech, Morrocco.
Anonymous. (2005). "Kyoto Mechanisms - Emissions Trading." United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change Retrieved August 13, 2005, from
http://unfcc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php.
Anonymous (2005). Proposed New Methodology for Afforestation and Reforestation
Project Activities: Baseline, Internation Panel on Climate Change.
Anonymous.
(2005).
"UNEP,
IPCC,
SRES
Scenarios."
2005,
from
http://climatechange.unep.net/jcm/doc/ernit/sres.html.
Brown, S. (2002). "Changes in the use and management of forests for abating carbon
emissions: issues and challenges under the Kyoto Protocol." The Royal Society.
Brown, S. (2005). "Guidelines for inventorying and monitoring carbon offsets in forestbased
projects."
Retrieved
July
5,
2005,
from
www.winrock.org/reep/guidelines.html.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. New York, New York, United Nations General
Assembly.
Chapin, F. S. I., G. R. Shaver, et al. (1996). "Responses of Arctic tundra to experimental
and observed changes in climate." Ecology 76(3): 694-711.
Costa, P. M. (1996). "Tropical Forestry Practics for Carbon Sequestration - A review and
a case study from Southeast Asia." Ambio 25: 279-328.
Emmer, I. M. (2005). An Introduction to the Monitoring of Forestry Carbon
Sequestration Projects. Capacity Development for the Clean Development
Mechanism. U. N. E. Programme.
Garcia-Olivia, F. and O. R. Masera (2004). "Assessment and Measurement Issues
Related to Soil Carbon Sequestration in Land-USe, Land-USe Change, and
Forestry (LULUCF) Projects Under the Kyoto Protocol." Climatic Change 65:
347-364.
Haites, E. and M. A. Aslam (2000). The Kyoto Mechanisms and Global Climate Change:
Coordination Issues and Domestic Policies, The Pew Center on Global Climate
Change.
Hendrick, E. and M. Ryan (2000). Carbon sequestration: Policy, Science, and Economics.
38
National Council on Forest Research and Development conference on Carbon
Sequestration and Irish Forests, Dublin, Ireland.
Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, et al. (2001). The Scientific Basis. IPCC Third Assessment
Report: Climate Change 2001. Cambridge, England, International Panel on
Climate Change.
May, P. H., E. Boyd, et al. (2003). Local sustainable development effects of forestry
carbon projects in Brazil and Bolivia: A view from the field. International
Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity. Bonn, Germany.
McCarthy, J. J., O. F. Canziani, et al. (2001). Impacts, Adaption, and Vulnerability. IPCC
Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Cambridge, England,
International Panel on Cliamge Change.
Meadows, D. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York.
Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, et al. (2000). Emission Scenarios: A Special Report of IPCC
Working Group III. N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, G. Daviset al. Cambridge,
International Panel on Climate Change: 599.
Oren, R. O. (2001). "Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a
CO2-enriched atmosphere." Nature 411: 469-472.
Philander, G. S. (1998). Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Climate
Change. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Prentice, I. C. (2001). The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Cambridge,
England, Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. R., R. Moulton, et al. (1993). "Costs of Creating Carbon Sinks in the U.S."
Energy Conservation and Management 34(9-11): 905-912.
Schlamadinger, B. and G. Marland (2000). Land Use and Global Climate Change:
Forests, Land Management, and the Kyoto Protocol, The Pew Center on Global
Climate Change.
Sedjo, R. A. (2001). Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some issues for Forest Investments.
Washington D.C., Resources for the Future.
Streck, C. (2004). "New Partnerships in Global Environment Policy: The Clean
Development Mechanism." The Journal of Environment and Development 13(3):
295-322.
Tietenberg, T. (1992). Environmental and Natrual Resource Economics.
Vitousek (1997). "Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems." Science 277: 494-499.
Vliet, O. P. V., A. P. Faaij, et al. (2003). "Forestry Projects under the Clean Development
Mechanism?" Climatic Change 61: 123-156.
Watson, R. T. (2001). Synthesis Report. IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change
2001. Geneva, Switzerland, International Panel on Climate Change.
Watson, R. T., I. R. Noble, et al. (2000). IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-use
Change and Forestry. Cambridge, International Panel on Climate Change: 377.
39